Reviews discussion

Where do you guys get the time? 

I've personally flooded the main page a time or two. Of course, that was writing the reviews one after another, posting in real time and not just throwing a bunch I'd written out there. It isn't some grand scheme of somebody's to take over the page. They may just be a fast writer, or a really slow one who doesn't always have good access to the internet.

And an interesting question I keep wondering if I should pose: does anybody actually read the five star reviews of Close to the Edge or Selling England by the Pound or so on? These incredibly popular, massively rated albums that seventy percent of reviewers give glowing praise to. I'm not interested usually in another five star review. I never read any reviews for those sorts of albums unless they're negative, because that's where the interesting viewpoints seem to happen. Anyone else find themselves in the same boat?

The main page is the flagship of this website - that's for sure ...
as for that I personally don't like it when the page is flooded by one reviewer - it undermines the diversity a bit ...

On the other hand this is not an abuse nor a policy is broken what I know - I simply don't like it ...

I don't see the problem with posting a bunch of reviews at once. I don't know about you, but I never idly read the front page to see reviews. And so what if you get pushed off? You were going to be pushed off by another review of SEBTP anyway.  Posting them all at once doesn't appreciably increase the rate of reviews, other than if it's late at night.

Edited by Henry Plainview - December 10 2009 at 02:09

Alberto Muñoz wrote: The Quiet One wrote: Windhawk wrote: Bottom line: The more reviews the merrier. If someone has prepared 20? Good. If some of them are first reviews as well: Great. I do hope that most of the reviewers write for their opinions to be looked at for the forseeable future - and not for a few hours of attention on the frontpage ;-)   If you look it that way, why don't abolish the front page feature all together? I wouldn't care if it wasn't there, but it is, so there's a reason why it was placed and I think people must be fair, and not drop a bomb of 5 or more reviews all in a row and don't let other reviews who were as hard worked as the other who posted them all consecutively.   It's a different case that a reviewer actually writes those reviews in the moment and posts them, that's fine.   Pablo , you feel that they steal to you your five hours of fame?

I never start PA with the "last 10 reviews" homepage. I've bookmarked the "last 50 reviews" homepage and that's how I start my daily visit to PA 

^that's really helpful

LiquidEternity wrote: This really isn't the place, I guess. But where I'm from, the word is completionists.

from where I'm from, which is here, the word is obsessive

Bonnek posted four Can reviews in 4 minutes (of course, that does prove that he wrote all of them in advance), between 14:07 and 14:10 EST (I'm sorry if the timeline is confusing, or it shows different to you)

Right now, they're halfway gone. It has only been an hour and a half since , and no new review appeared for almost an hour after Bonnek's series.

An hour prior to Bonnek's series, only 2 reviews were written. Prior to that, 11 reviews were written within less than an hour. "Rune2000" reviewed Hackett's Bay Of Kings at 12:03, 53 minutes later it was front page history. No riot? Maybe Rune2000's heart was crushed, too. Psarros's Sithonia review stayed on the front page for 3 hours, even with Bonnek's devastating intrusion. Bonnek's reviews themselves could dissappear much sooner (they'll start dissapearing with the next new review, as I write: 2 hours and a half so far)

This is pretty much bicker to my ears. It's the recent 10 reviews listing, nothing stays on it for half a day if the traffic goes even moderately. I'd be more interested how many people click on "last 50 reviews", because that's what I do everyday, after a night's sleep. That's close to how many reviews are written in a matter of 6-7 hours, if it's a good day.

I didn't imagine hopes were so high, for recent reviews (given such fruitful reviewing activity) to be treasured. I don't understand what's obliterated either. The reviews stay forever on the album's page (where people, excluding the roughly half a day it takes for the front page to be fully refreshed, go anyway in search of reading, recommendations or informations), plus also on the highly-esteemed reviewers (if viewed that way by their faithful readers)  own personal reviews' page.


Also what Moris said, from a different, better point of view.



Edited by Ricochet - December 09 2009 at 18:08

Continuing from comments in the reviews reporting thread: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28343&PN=120

LiquidEternity wrote: This really isn't the place, I guess. But where I'm from, the word is completionists.

Yeah, not uncommon for there to be alternate spellings, and regional spellings, so either is acceptable.  I prefer completist partially because it's simpler, but then I prefer some longer spellings of words because I'm used to them (for instance, I prefer colour to color).  I remember being corrected by a teacher at PA for using an "ise" spelling instead of "ize" when I know full-well that both are correct. 

Windhawk wrote: What about: An overall weak effort, might be of interest to fans Avoid. At best for completists

I like it!


Edited by Logan - November 27 2009 at 09:53